0

The High Court erred in analysing the evidence and restoring the application of the writ petition: Supreme Court

Blog, blog , , , ,

Case title: J.N Puri Vs State Of Uttar Pradesh

Case no.: SLP(Civil.) No(s). 24776 of 2020

Decided on: 29.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice B.R Gavai, Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Mehta.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The current appeal stems from a decision by the high court’s divisional bench on the issue of the respondents’ acquisition of his land in 1987. The appellant claims that he is still in possession of the land. The writ petition was dismissed for a lack of prosecution.

The appellant filed an application for the restoration of the writ petition. It appears that the aforementioned restoration application was not pursued for an extended period of time, prompting the appellant to file yet another Writ Petition in 1999, this time requesting that the restoration application be pursued and an appropriate order issued. The high court has once again denied the restoration petition.

However, after receiving information from the Registry of the High Court of Uttarakhand under the RTI Act that the appellant’s writ petition had been dismissed on default on February 26, 1992, the appellant filed a recalling and restoration application, along with an application seeking condonation for the delay in filing the above recalling application, which was dismissed by the High Court.

Furthermore, a review application was filed against the above order, which was also dismissed.

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

According to the counsel for the appellant, the application for restoration was filed on March 23, 1992, which is one month after the writ petition for non-prosecution was dismissed.

They drew the Court’s attention to paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh/Uttarakhand, which admits the factum of filing the application dated March 23, 1992, seeking restoration to its original number.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The court held that the High Court of Uttarakhand erred in stating that the application for restoration of the writ petition, which was dismissed for non-prosecution by order dated February 26, 1992, was filed seven years later after taking into account all of the available evidence.

According to the State of Uttar Pradesh’s counter-affidavit, paragraph 5, the restoration application was submitted within a month. No one ever gave the application a fair hearing.

The case has been brought back before the High Court of Uttarakhand, which will restore the appellant’s writ petition and expeditiously decide the case on its merits after providing all parties with a chance to be heard.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read Judgement

0

The supreme court issues new guidelines for the bail application procedure.

Blog, blog , , , , ,

Case title: Kusha Duruka Vs. State of Odisha

Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 2024

Decided on: 19.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath, Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Bindal

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The current appeal is for bail for the accused, who has been in custody in connection with exclusive and conscious possession of the substance of Ganja.

Application for release on bail pending trial was denied. The appellant filed his first bail application in the High Court after being dissatisfied with  rejection his bail application. However, the appellant’s bail application was dismissed in high court.

The appellant filed the SLP before this Court, expressing his dissatisfaction with the situation. On 06.12.2023, the appellant’s counsel stated that while the current matter was pending before this Court, the High Court granted bail to the appellant in another bench of the high court by order dated 11.10.2023.

He presented with a soft copy of the High Court’s order. On a reading of the aforementioned order, the Court found that it made no mention of the appellant’s second bail application or the SLP’s pending before this Court, for which notice had already been issued.

The appellant filed a second bail application, in which he was granted bail by the High Court via an order dated 11.10.2023. The Court received the original record of this bail application, along with a report dated 08.12.2023 from the High Court and a note from the Hon’ble Judge who heard the case and issued the order on 11.10.2023.

The judge who granted the bail stated in his comments that at the time of hearing the second bail application, the court was not aware of the factum of the SLP’s pending before this court.

 

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

The court noted that the appellant made no mention of the High Court’s decision on his earlier bail application, as well as the filing of the SLP in this Court. Though, just below the names of the parties, the appellant mentioned the number of his previous bail application. The appellant has notably refrained from discussing the High Court’s decision to reject his previous bail application and his filing of the SLP with this Court, even within the body of the bail application.

During the course of this case, a new bail application was filed not only before the Trial Court but also before the High Court. The appellant was even granted bail by the High Court.

The appellant did not specify that this was his second bail application in the one he filed with the High Court.

The court has established the following mandatory guidelines in an effort to streamline the proceedings, prevent anomalies with regard to bail applications filed in cases pending trial and even for sentence suspension, and to clear up any confusion going forward:

  • Information about the case and copies of the orders issued in the petitioner’s prior, already-decided bail application(s).
  • Information regarding any bail application(s) that the petitioner has filed, which are pending in any court either the court below the one in question or the higher court or, in the event that none are pending, express notice to that effect.
  • A report generated by the system regarding the approved or pending bail application(s) in the relevant criminal case should also be annexed by the court registry. Even in the case of private complaints, the same procedure must be followed because, even in the absence of a FIR number, every case filed in trial courts is given a unique number (CNR No.).
  • The Investigating Officer and any other officers supporting the State Counsel in court should be responsible for informing the State Counsel of any orders, if any, issued by the court regarding various bail applications or other proceedings related to the same criminal case. Additionally, the solicitors representing the parties must behave themselves genuinely as court officers.

The appeal was dismissed, but the appellant’s bail was not cancelled. The court ordered a cost of ₹10,000/- to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to the Orissa High Court.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read judgement

0

The statement of an accused under Section 313 CrPC should not be considered as an evidence: Supreme Court

blog, Blog , , , , , ,

Case title: Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab

Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. 163 of 2010

Decided on: 04.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai, Hon’ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Hon’ble Justice Arvind Kumar.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

This special leave appeal is based on the High Court of Punjab and Haryana’s judgement and order dated July 23, 2009, in Criminal Appeal No.593-DB of 2000.

The deceased, Amrik Kaur, married the appellant, Darshan Singh, sometime in 1988. Melo Kaur, the deceased’s cousin sister, helped arrange the marriage. The prosecution claims that Darshan Singh’s illicit partnership with Rani Kaur (A2) strained their marital relationship. Several relatives had urged the appellant to end his relationship with Rani Kaur, but to no avail. Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur allegedly had an illicit relationship for at least three years prior to the fateful day. The prosecution claims that on the intervening night of May 18, 1999, and May 19, 1999, Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur administered poison and intentionally caused Amrik Kaur’s death.

Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur were charged with violating Section 302 of the IPC in conjunction with Section 34. The Trial Court convicted both of the accused for the offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 and sentenced them to life in prison. In the appeal, the High Court agreed with the Trial Court’s findings in relation to the appellant and acquitted Rani Kaur by giving her the benefit of the doubt.

ISSUES:

  1. What is the standard of proof to be met by an accused in support of his defence?
  2. If circumstantial evidence is the only basis for a conviction, what standards should be applied when assessing it?

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

The court convicted the accused to life imprisonment under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. The crime of murder is covered in Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. Section 302 of the Code, however, stipulates the punishment for the offender. This Section states that a murderer will either receive life in prison or the death penalty in addition to a fine.

Section 34 of the IPC defines the acts committed by several people in furtherance of a common intention. The section states that “when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons shall be liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

According to the court ruling on circumstantial evidence, the court cited the case of Bhimsingh Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2015) 4 SCC 281 which held that a case involving circumstantial evidence typically follows this pattern: the circumstances from which the accused’s guilt is to be inferred must be persuasively and firmly established, they must have a clear tendency that unmistakably points to the accused’s guilt, and when the circumstances are considered cumulatively, they should form a chain so complete that there is no way out of the conclusion. According to the prosecution’s case, the illicit relationship between Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur was the primary motivation for them to collaborate in the murder of the deceased. The testimony of witnesses provides sufficient evidence that they were in an illicit relationship. As a result, the situation has been clearly established.

When dealing with Melo Kaur’s illiteracy, the court ruled that the appreciation of evidence presented by such a witness must be treated differently than that of other witnesses. It cannot be subjected to a highly technical investigation, and undue emphasis should not be placed on imprecise details revealed in the evidence. If the deposition contains minor contradictions or inconsistencies, the testimony of a rustic/illiterate witness should not be ignored.

However, Melo kaur’s testimony suffers from more than just technical flaws; there are glaring omissions and improvements revealed during cross-examination that cannot be attributed to the individual deposition’s illiteracy. Minor contradictions and inconsistencies could have been overlooked because the recollection of exact details about location and time can be attributed to illiteracy, which is not the case here.

When discussing the standard of proof under Section 313 of the Crpc, the court cited the case of Pramila vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2021 SCC OnLine SC 711 in which the court ruled that the standard of proof that an accused must meet in support of his defence under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure is not beyond all reasonable doubt, and thus the prosecution bears the burden of proving the charge. The accused only needs to raise a question, and it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused will not benefit from the situation.

The statement of an accused under Section 313 CrPC is not ‘evidence’ because, first, it is not under oath, and second, the other party, i.e. the prosecution, does not have the opportunity to cross-examine the accused.

The learned counsel for the respondent-State has argued that no specific plea of alibi was made in the appellant’s statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC. Indeed, it is claimed that there is an implicit admission of his presence in the house. It is well established that an accused’s statement under Section 313 CrPC is not ‘evidence’ because, first, it is not under oath, and second, the other party, i.e. the prosecution, is not given the opportunity to cross-examine the accused. It is well established law that a statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC cannot be used as the sole basis for conviction. As a result, the appellant’s presence cannot be determined solely based on his statement, despite the lack of independent evidence presented by the prosecution.

Finally, the court ruled that we do not need to consider the evidence relating to other circumstances sought to be proved by the prosecution because failure to prove a single circumstance convincingly can cause a break in the chain of circumstances. There cannot be a gap in the chain of events. When a conviction is based solely on circumstantial evidence, there should be no break in the chain of events. If the chain snaps, the accused has the benefit of the doubt. If some of the events in the chain can be explained by another reasonable hypothesis, then the accused is also entitled to the benefit of the doubt. As a result, the court allowed this appeal and set aside the lower court’s concurrent findings of conviction.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read judgement

 

0

The Appellate courts should be cautious when intervening into convictions of lower courts: Supreme Court

blog, Blog , , , , ,

Case title: Jitendra Kumar Mishra @ Jittu vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. 1348 of 2011

Decided on: 05.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka, Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Mithal.

 FACTS OF THE CASE:

Four individuals, Amit Mishra, Jitendra Kumar Mishra, Banti Isai, and Ajayya, were sentenced to life in prison under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC in a judgement and order dated September 15, 2008, by the 13th Additional Session Judge (Fast Track), Jabalpur, M.P. The fine for each of the four was Rs. 5,000. If the fine was not paid, the inmates would have to serve an additional six months of rigorous imprisonment.

Amit Mishra, Jitendra Kumar Mishra, and Banti Isai and Ajayya filed appeals, and all three of them succeeded in having the conviction and sentence from the Session Trial upheld. The appeals were both dismissed by the High Court.

The conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC, against which Amit Mishra, Jitendra Kumar Mishra, Banti Isai, and Ajayya have filed the current appeals.

On August 7, 2011, leave to appeal was granted for both appeals after they were tagged. While the appeal was still pending, Amit Mishra, one of the appellants, passed away. Consequently, the only person filing the appeal is the appellant, Jitendra Kumar Mishra.

At roughly 8:45 p.m. on June 8, 2007, the incident happened in front of the Machchu Hotel, which is under the control of the Ghamapur Police Station in Jabalpur and is close to the Shukla Hotel. Rajendra Yadav perished in the aforementioned incident. It is alleged that he was beaten and assaulted by all four accused while leaving the Machchu Hotel with his friends Virendra Verma and Amit Jha. The accused are said to have used a knife along with other weapons like a sickle and kesia.

Rajkumar Yadav, the deceased’s brother, and Usha Rani Yadav, his mother, received information regarding the alleged beating and assault of the deceased Pappu from Virendra Kumar.

They brought the dead to the Ghamapur Police Station in a rickshaw. Before pronounced him dead, complainant Rajkumar Yadav brought the deceased to Victoria Hospital in Jabalpur for medical attention.

The prosecution’s starting point is the decedent’s dying declaration. It’s the last statement made orally. The deceased made it for his brother Rajkumar Yadav and mother Usha Rani Yadav.

The deceased said that Banti Isai, Manja, and Ajay attacked him with knives, daggers, and kasia, respectively, and that Jittu grabbed both of his hands. The last line of the statement above answers the question the deceased’s mother asked after seeing her son lying in a pool of blood on the road.

One of the eyewitnesses, Rahul Yadav, has given testimony in addition to the previously mentioned dying declaration.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

The court convicted the accused to life imprisonment under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. The crime of murder is covered in Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. Section 302 of the Code, however, stipulates the punishment for the offender. This Section states that a murderer will either receive life in prison or the death penalty in addition to a fine.

Section 34 of the IPC defines the acts committed by several people in furtherance of a common intention. The section states that “when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons shall be liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

The court found that the one Rahul Yadav is a relative of the deceased Pappu Yadav and thus cannot be considered a free and independent witness. The evidence shows that he has a criminal background. He is involved in one of the cases filed under Sections 324 and 326 IPC. Given his background, his testimony must be treated with extreme caution and cannot be relied on blindly without taking into account any available corroborating evidence on record.

The court said that the deceased did not mention in his alleged dying declaration or the statement given to his brother and mother that someone attempted to save him or that the above witness Rahul Yadav came to his aid but was forced to flee. Furthermore, the FIR does not mention the presence of Rahul Yadav. All of these factors cast serious doubt on the presence of Rahul Yadav, and the conviction cannot be based solely on his testimony.

The FIR stated that Virendra and Amit Jha, the deceased’s friends who were present at the time of the incident, witnessed the incident.

And the deceased Rajkumar Yadav’s brother works as a lawyer. The deceased’s brother and mother had rushed to the scene after receiving information about the incident from Virendra Kumar, who had gone to their house after witnessing the accused persons assaulting the deceased. All of this could have taken 15-25 minutes, implying that by the time they arrived at the scene, the deceased would not have survived long enough to make a declaration. There is no specific material piece of evidence to establish that the deceased was alive and in a position to speak when his brother and mother arrived at the spot. In these circumstances, the dying declaration cannot be accepted as correct without supporting evidence. There is no evidence to support the said dying declaration.

It also said that the appellate court should proceed cautiously in interfering with the conviction recorded by the courts below; however, where the evidence on record indicates that the prosecution has failed to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that a plausible view other than the one expressed by the courts below can be taken, the appellate court should not hesitate to grant the accused persons the benefit of the doubt.

Given the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the court believes that the lower courts should have given the appellants the benefit of the doubt. As a result, they believe that the appellants’ conviction and sentence are reversible, and they do so by granting the benefit of the doubt.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click to read the judgement

0

The existing criteria for identifying private forests in the state of Goa are adequate and valid: Supreme Court

Blog, blog , , , , ,

Case title: In Re: TN Godavarman Thirumalpad vs Union of India & Ors.

Case no.: Writ Petition Civil No. 202 of 1995

Decided on: 24.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice B.R Gavai, Hon’ble Justice Arvind Kumar, Hon’ble Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.

 FACTS OF THE CASE:

The criteria set forth by the State of Goa and others for designating “forests” within the state are at the root of the current appeals.

The Bombay High Court held in Shivanand Salgaocar v. Tree Officer & Ors. that all lands, whether owned by the government or privately, were subject to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The State of Goa’s Conservator of Forests established guidelines in 1991 for determining what constitutes “forest” on private properties.

In the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, the Court ruled on December 12, 1996, that, for the purposes of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act of 1980, “forest” refers to “all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise,” and that this understanding should be based on the dictionary definition. The Tennessee Godavarman Case ordered all States to form an expert committee to determine what constitutes a “forest” and where it is located.

The Goa government established the Sawant Committee in 1997 to carry out the directive, designating 46.89 square kilometres of private forest. In 2000, the Karapurkar Committee was formed to determine the remaining areas. The current appellant, Goa Foundation, filed a Writ Petition with the court contesting the Karapurkar Committee’s appointment after the committee recommended a revisit to omit some of the forest areas previously identified by the Sawant Committee. Concurrently, the Karapurkar Committee presented its concluding report, outlining 20.18 square kilometres of privately owned forest.

However, the task of both Committees was incomplete because some areas remained unidentified, and the court dismissed the writ petition.

The appellant filed a Writ Petition seeking directions from the State Government of Goa to complete the process of identifying forests and degraded forest lands in accordance with this Court’s order dated 12.12.1996.

The State Government formed two new committees to identify the remaining private forest areas in the North and South Goa districts that had not been identified by previous committees.

The Appellant filed another Writ Petition in the High Court of Bombay, seeking to overturn the canopy density criteria, which should not be less than 0.4. The Appellant contended that the failure to consider forest areas with canopy densities of 0.1-0.4 (10-40%) violated the criteria allegedly accepted by this Court in the case of TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors. dated 28.03.2008.

The State of Goa again formed two Committees13 to identify the balance areas of private forests that had not been covered by the previous Committees.

The Bombay High Court transferred both Writ Petitions to the NGT on October 17, 2013, renaming them Application No.14 (THC) of 2013 and Application No.16 (THC) of 2013. The NGT dismissed both applications in the impugned order, and thus the appellant is before this Court.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

The Court clarified that in accordance with the dictionary definition, “forest” refers to “all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected, or otherwise” for the purposes of Section 2(i) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The Court proceeded to explicate that the phrase “forest land” as used in Section 2 encompasses not only the dictionary definition of “forest,” but also “any area recorded as forest in the Government record, regardless of ownership.”

And the appellant has filed these civil appeals under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act of 2010.

ISSUES:

Whether it is necessary to change the forest identification standards that the Goa government established?

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

The appellant’s counsel argued that the tribunal erred in failing to issue a merits order based on the fact that the issue is before this Court.

They contended that the identification of private forests on the basis of criteria accepted by FSI and this Court in the order of 2008 passed for determining Net Present Value should also be adopted and followed for forest identification, which would be in the interest of environmental protection and a step towards implementing the order dated 12.12.1996 passed by this Court, which has yet to be met by the State of Goa.

The Appellant also requests that the criteria for identifying private forest/deemed forest on private lands in the State of Goa be revisited using the parameters used by FSI, which are based on 0.1 density forest in an area of 1 hectare.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:

According to the respondent(s), res judicata rules render the criteria for forest identification final and unchallengeable. In 1991, the Bombay High Court decided in the Shivanand Salgaonkar case (Bombay High Court decision dated 27.11.1990) what the criteria for identifying forest was.

It was also argued that the criteria for forest identification, which serve as the foundation for the Sawant, Karapurkar reports, were first proposed by the State of Goa’s Forest Department in 1991. The Forest Department proposed a crown density of 40% and a minimum area of 5 ha because conserving small patches of forest land was not sustainable in the long run.

The counsel for the respondents argued that the State of Goa (Sawant and Karapurkar Committees) adopted the aforementioned criteria in 1991 in compliance with this Court’s order dated 12.12.1996 in T.N. Godavarman.

Finally, the counsel for the respondent(s) submits that the criteria for identifying forests and the processes used by different states are governed by an Order issued by this Court on December 12, 1996, in the TN Godavarman case. The Court directed the State Government to develop the criteria based on their local situation, taking into account the fact that Forest, as a concurrent subject, must be determined as such by the State Government in order for the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 to be applicable.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

The court determined that the state of Goa’s current standards for designating private forests are sufficient and legitimate, negating the need for revisions. Insofar as they exempt the Forest Conservation Act of 1980 from application on areas less than 1 hectare and require the cutting of no more than 75 trees, the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change guidelines and the Scheduled Tribes & Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 are unambiguous and clear.

The court further held that, acknowledging that there cannot be consistent standards for such identification throughout the nation, this Court specifically assigned the task of identifying forest areas to Expert Committees to be formed by State Governments in its order dated 12.12.1996, recognising this fact.

They conclude that the current appeals are not worthy of being accepted in light of the previously stated information. Accordingly, the same position is rejected and the contested order dated July 30, 2014 is upheld.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

1 … 3 4 5 6